Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

http://www.whio.com/news/national/legal ... DClNGuaUP/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even though it's from the ATF, it's specifically addressed to whoever in Ohio can legally (legally under Ohio law) possess medicinal pot.

People who register with the state of Ohio to legally use medical marijuana will be prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law, according to guidance released by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

In an open letter to federally licensed firearms dealers, the ATF advised in 2011 that marijuana is still a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law so any use of the drug is unlawful, and gun dealers are prohibited from providing guns or ammo to anyone they have cause to believe uses pot.

“There are no exceptions in federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such is sanctioned by state law,” the memo says.

The law applies to more than just buying guns. The ATF letter says marijuana users are prohibited from “shipping, transporting, receiving or possessing firearms or ammunition.

When Ohio’s medical marijuana program becomes operational in September 2018, Ohioans will be able to register to use cannabis if they have a recommendation from a physician saying they have one of 21 qualifying conditions.

Not at all unexpected.

JustaShooter wrote:Not at all unexpected.

Agreed....also not unexpected are RICO sanctions against any in government who collect taxes from the sale and use of federally scheduled drugs in violation of Federal law.


Bill

willbird wrote:Agreed....also not unexpected are RICO sanctions against any in government who collect taxes from the sale and use of federally scheduled drugs in violation of Federal law.

The funny thing is when it comes to medical marijuana Congress has enacted a rider prohibiting the DOJ from pursuing state medical marijuana programs and it has been renewed several times. There is no such rider for legalized recreational use, so technically there's nothing stopping Trump from telling the DOJ to go hit officials in Colorado and the other recreational states.

Having said that, this begs the question: if Congress has the votes to tell the DOJ to not prosecute people, why don't they have the votes to take it off Schedule I? The cynic in me says it's all about control. While it's on the books they can hang the threat of prosecution over everyone's heads. If the rider expires DOJ would be free to pursue violations going back as far as the statute of limitations allows (I believe it's five years for drug charges and four for RICO). If they legalize it and then change their minds they could only prosecute for prohibited conduct going forward.

djthomas wrote:

willbird wrote:Agreed....also not unexpected are RICO sanctions against any in government who collect taxes from the sale and use of federally scheduled drugs in violation of Federal law.

The funny thing is when it comes to medical marijuana Congress has enacted a rider prohibiting the DOJ from pursuing state medical marijuana programs and it has been renewed several times. There is no such rider for legalized recreational use, so technically there's nothing stopping Trump from telling the DOJ to go hit officials in Colorado and the other recreational states.

Having said that, this begs the question: if Congress has the votes to tell the DOJ to not prosecute people, why don't they have the votes to take it off Schedule I? The cynic in me says it's all about control. While it's on the books they can hang the threat of prosecution over everyone's heads. If the rider expires DOJ would be free to pursue violations going back as far as the statute of limitations allows (I believe it's five years for drug charges and four for RICO). If they legalize it and then change their minds they could only prosecute for prohibited conduct going forward.

Well speaking from the POV of a person who once had High Times magazine in one hand, and a funny smelling cig in the other hand....well maybe in a screenplay I an writing a character that resembles me did that . The Medical thing has been a sham from day one, it was always intended to be abused. BUT...if the stuff is medicine....well the number one rule of medication is, one does not self medicate .

if it is a medicine well then prescriptions are required, it IMHO does have a large liability for abuse when coupled with it's very limited actually proven medical uses. And flat out smoking weed is ludicrous when proposed as a "cure" for anything IMHO.

Bill

Hmmmm... last I checked there are plenty of medicines that don't require a prescription. Aspirin, cough syrup, antacids, etc, etc. And, last I checked, plenty of people self medicate with said medicine without a prescription and *gasp* without the permission of a doctor or a bureaucrat. Because heaven forbid people should be able to own themselves, be responsible for themselves, or do for themselves. Until someone harms someone else, I couldn't care less what they do, who they do, or what they ingest.

willbird wrote:Well speaking from the POV of a person who once had High Times magazine in one hand, and a funny smelling cig in the other hand....well maybe in a screenplay I an writing a character that resembles me did that . The Medical thing has been a sham from day one, it was always intended to be abused. BUT...if the stuff is medicine....well the number one rule of medication is, one does not self medicate .

if it is a medicine well then prescriptions are required, it IMHO does have a large liability for abuse when coupled with it's very limited actually proven medical uses. And flat out smoking weed is ludicrous when proposed as a "cure" for anything IMHO.

Bill

technicality - but one does not get a prescription for MM. In Ohio, it's called, paraphrasing, a permit to purchase.

Federal law governs prescribing and since MM is not legal, no prescription.

WY_Not wrote:Hmmmm... last I checked there are plenty of medicines that don't require a prescription. Aspirin, cough syrup, antacids, etc, etc. And, last I checked, plenty of people self medicate with said medicine without a prescription and *gasp* without the permission of a doctor or a bureaucrat. Because heaven forbid people should be able to own themselves, be responsible for themselves, or do for themselves. Until someone harms someone else, I couldn't care less what they do, who they do, or what they ingest.

willbird wrote:Well speaking from the POV of a person who once had High Times magazine in one hand, and a funny smelling cig in the other hand....well maybe in a screenplay I an writing a character that resembles me did that . The Medical thing has been a sham from day one, it was always intended to be abused. BUT...if the stuff is medicine....well the number one rule of medication is, one does not self medicate .

if it is a medicine well then prescriptions are required, it IMHO does have a large liability for abuse when coupled with it's very limited actually proven medical uses. And flat out smoking weed is ludicrous when proposed as a "cure" for anything IMHO.

Bill

And that is a process too. Many of those OTC you mention were indeed prescription drugs for many years. Subjected to rigorous testing prior to being allowed on the market, avail ONLY by prescription. Then after long use they were turned into OTC drugs by the FDA. Contrarily some OTC drugs have been completely banned (ephedra stuff), and some became fairly strictly controlled (pseud-ephedrine stuff)....some by state laws, some federal laws and regulations.

I'm with you as far as "harmless" goes...but in the same grain I do not want to be forced via the tax code to support some jerk who ranks getting high as more important than being able to get or keep a decent job.....one cannot get or hold a decent job if one uses drugs......I see people lose their jobs all the time because they failed a saliva drug test.....one of the "easiest" forms to tests to pass. You pretty much had to have used TODAY to fail one.

Regulatory agencies schedule drugs....and control what can be sold as "medicine"...and mandate testing for safety and that it actually does anything to begin with.

Bill

Ah, but that is a separate issue, multiple separate issues actually. If they are able bodied, then put them to work if they want to collect a check. Plenty of trash along the roads that needs picked up. Plenty of minor, basic maintenance work and cleanup that needs done at the parks and other public spaces. Welfare and other programs should be a helping hand for the short term not a lifestyle.

Plenty of "unsanctioned" medicine out there if people have the time to read.

But this is getting way off topic.

willbird wrote:

WY_Not wrote:Hmmmm... last I checked there are plenty of medicines that don't require a prescription. Aspirin, cough syrup, antacids, etc, etc. And, last I checked, plenty of people self medicate with said medicine without a prescription and *gasp* without the permission of a doctor or a bureaucrat. Because heaven forbid people should be able to own themselves, be responsible for themselves, or do for themselves. Until someone harms someone else, I couldn't care less what they do, who they do, or what they ingest.

willbird wrote:Well speaking from the POV of a person who once had High Times magazine in one hand, and a funny smelling cig in the other hand....well maybe in a screenplay I an writing a character that resembles me did that . The Medical thing has been a sham from day one, it was always intended to be abused. BUT...if the stuff is medicine....well the number one rule of medication is, one does not self medicate .

if it is a medicine well then prescriptions are required, it IMHO does have a large liability for abuse when coupled with it's very limited actually proven medical uses. And flat out smoking weed is ludicrous when proposed as a "cure" for anything IMHO.

Bill

And that is a process too. Many of those OTC you mention were indeed prescription drugs for many years. Subjected to rigorous testing prior to being allowed on the market, avail ONLY by prescription. Then after long use they were turned into OTC drugs by the FDA. Contrarily some OTC drugs have been completely banned (ephedra stuff), and some became fairly strictly controlled (pseud-ephedrine stuff)....some by state laws, some federal laws and regulations.

I'm with you as far as "harmless" goes...but in the same grain I do not want to be forced via the tax code to support some jerk who ranks getting high as more important than being able to get or keep a decent job.....one cannot get or hold a decent job if one uses drugs......I see people lose their jobs all the time because they failed a saliva drug test.....one of the "easiest" forms to tests to pass. You pretty much had to have used TODAY to fail one.

Regulatory agencies schedule drugs....and control what can be sold as "medicine"...and mandate testing for safety and that it actually does anything to begin with.

Bill

And that is a process too. Many of those OTC you mention were indeed prescription drugs for many years. Subjected to rigorous testing prior to being allowed on the market, avail ONLY by prescription. Then after long use they were turned into OTC drugs by the FDA. Contrarily some OTC drugs have been completely banned (ephedra stuff), and some became fairly strictly controlled (pseud-ephedrine stuff)....some by state laws, some federal laws and regulations.

I'm with you as far as "harmless" goes...but in the same grain I do not want to be forced via the tax code to support some jerk who ranks getting high as more important than being able to get or keep a decent job.....one cannot get or hold a decent job if one uses drugs......I see people lose their jobs all the time because they failed a saliva drug test.....one of the "easiest" forms to tests to pass. You pretty much had to have used TODAY to fail one.

Regulatory agencies schedule drugs....and control what can be sold as "medicine"...and mandate testing for safety and that it actually does anything to begin with.



I am not responsible for putting them to work. They are responsible for becoming and staying employable, or even to move to where employees like them are needed.

To a degree IMHO people who are dependent upon the govt for basic subsistence are wards of the state and maybe the state should in turn act as their parents until they grow up enough to be independent.

But anyway, the federal govt has agencies that schedule drugs and substances, and in some cases federal law over rules more permissive state laws. the FAA and NTSB are just two examples where federal agencies require drug testing in order to maintain licenses required to engage in those professions.

Want to be free, fine, do not expect me to support you and an ever growing tribe of children who are all "poor" due to your bad life choices.

Bill

Wiki says:

This is the list of Schedule I drugs as defined by the United States Controlled Substances Act.[1] The following findings are required for drugs to be placed in this schedule:[2]

The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Except as specifically authorized, it is illegal for any person:

to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance; or
to create, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to distribute or dispense, a counterfeit substance.[3]

So, we have a state saying that there IS accepted medical use, and the feds disagreeing. Who shall overrule the other? Well, there's no governor candidate who will defend the citizen's RKBA in regards to State supremacy on this matter. Maybe we need National Mary Jane Reciprocity?

Where's the due process proceeding that earned someone a "Prohibited Person" badge? Sounds like exactly the purpose of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...ask Trey Gowdy

bignflnut wrote:Wiki says:

This is the list of Schedule I drugs as defined by the United States Controlled Substances Act.[1] The following findings are required for drugs to be placed in this schedule:[2]

The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Except as specifically authorized, it is illegal for any person:

to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance; or
to create, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to distribute or dispense, a counterfeit substance.[3]

So, we have a state saying that there IS accepted medical use, and the feds disagreeing. Who shall overrule the other? Well, there's no governor candidate who will defend the citizen's RKBA in regards to State supremacy on this matter. Maybe we need National Mary Jane Reciprocity?

Where's the due process proceeding that earned someone a "Prohibited Person" badge? Sounds like exactly the purpose of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...ask Trey Gowdy

States do not IMHO have the power to determine that a federally scheduled drug is a "medicine" and to conspire to break federal law for fun AND profit. It is a RICO offense probably. If they tried it with Alcohol or Tobacco or Firearms there would be hell to pay.

Same thing if a state conspired to violate federal law as far as motor carrier transport...say allow operating a semi tractor commercially in state with just a Chauffeurs license like you could pre CDL.

Another example would be issuing state licenses to violate federal nuclear power rules, or clean air and water regulations.

Bill

willbird wrote:
States do not IMHO have the power to determine that a federally scheduled drug is a "medicine" and to conspire to break federal law for fun AND profit. It is a RICO offense probably. If they tried it with Alcohol or Tobacco or Firearms there would be hell to pay.

Bill

How do we square this ...

Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia currently have laws broadly legalizing marijuana in some form.

Seven states and the District of Columbia have adopted the most expansive laws legalizing marijuana for recreational use. Most recently, California, Massachusetts, Maine and Nevada all passed measures in November legalizing recreational marijuana. California’s Prop. 64 measure allows adults 21 and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana and grow up to six plants in their homes. Other tax and licensing provisions of the law will not take effect until January 2018.

The negative right of private property possession does nothing to harm society or citizens. Should people not be allowed to posses items, be they substances or weapons, on the simple basis that the feds say something is dangerous? Oh, sure, trot out the nuclear weapon or tank example. Why not ban firearms for people who have alcohol in the home, then? Why not have a database check for recent alcohol sales or NICS when you buy a case of beer? The principle would be similar, would it not? Right in BATFE's wheelhouse...

bignflnut wrote:

willbird wrote:
States do not IMHO have the power to determine that a federally scheduled drug is a "medicine" and to conspire to break federal law for fun AND profit. It is a RICO offense probably. If they tried it with Alcohol or Tobacco or Firearms there would be hell to pay.

Bill

How do we square this ...

Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia currently have laws broadly legalizing marijuana in some form.

Seven states and the District of Columbia have adopted the most expansive laws legalizing marijuana for recreational use. Most recently, California, Massachusetts, Maine and Nevada all passed measures in November legalizing recreational marijuana. California’s Prop. 64 measure allows adults 21 and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana and grow up to six plants in their homes. Other tax and licensing provisions of the law will not take effect until January 2018.

The negative right of private property possession does nothing to harm society or citizens. Should people not be allowed to posses items, be they substances or weapons, on the simple basis that the feds say something is dangerous? Oh, sure, trot out the nuclear weapon or tank example. Why not ban firearms for people who have alcohol in the home, then? Why not have a database check for recent alcohol sales or NICS when you buy a case of beer? The principle would be similar, would it not? Right in BATFE's wheelhouse...

Your talking about the supposed right to engage in production and sale, and or use of dope and have a CCW both. I think your support base for getting high and CCW could hold it's annual members meeting in a phone booth if they could find one these days.

An element of Castle Doctrine in Ohio involves whether one is engaged in criminal enterprise when the self defense takes place too, that definition as far as I know does not say "criminal enterprise means only crimes involving Ohio revised code....".

One can advocate for whatever they want, and I encourage you to do so, and I will continue to point out that you are suggesting that mainstream RKBA advocates should stand up for the right to get high and CCW...not gonna happen.

Bill

willbird wrote: Your talking about the supposed right to engage in production and sale, and or use of dope and have a CCW both. I think your support base for getting high and CCW could hold it's annual members meeting in a phone booth if they could find one these days. I did not discuss production, sale or any usage of any substances. You simply stated that you didn't think the states could overwrite the feds, and I demonstrated that many have done just that, phone booths notwithstanding. The goal posts are right where I left them, and haven't moved to commercial purposes or anything else.

We are discussing a federal decree, not a law that was passed, that impacts the 2nd Amendment rights of people in the states, as they are declared "Prohibited Persons" without the benefit of due process ( a violation of 5th Amendment), being told to surrender arms.

willbird wrote:An element of Castle Doctrine in Ohio involves whether one is engaged in criminal enterprise when the self defense takes place too, that definition as far as I know does not say "criminal enterprise means only crimes involving Ohio revised code....".[/size]

I suppose this is relevant somehow. (scratches head) Have you heard the theory that we all commit 3 felonies a day?

willbird wrote:One can advocate for whatever they want, and I encourage you to do so, and I will continue to point out that you are suggesting that mainstream RKBA advocates should stand up for the right to get high and CCW...not gonna happen.

Bill

I'm certainly not advocating for anything but sobriety when using or handling firearms. That said, there is no solid scientific way to determine or define sobriety, as sleep deprivation, blood sugar swings, pharmaceutical drugs, etc can all be said to effect reflexes, alertness, thought processes, etc. It's like defining "distracted driving"...when and how is my full attention on driving? Perhaps if everyone established a baseline and then was tested as compared to that baseline (like a concussion protocol)....